social influence

what is conformity?

the process of yielding to the influence of a majority

Kelmans three types of conformity

• compliance

• identification

• internalisation

compliance

• publicly conforming with the group but not privately

• occurs when want approval

• it is temporary as stops when no pressure to conform

identification

• conforming to the opinions of a given group in society

• conform because we identity with the group

• regarded as a moderate level of conformity

internalisation

• someone conforms because they are really convinced by the group

• involved validation (re examining your own beliefs to see if they are right)

• permanent change

dual process explanation of conformity

• informational social influence

• normative social influence

informational social influence

• conform when we want to be right

• when we are uncertain

• cognitive process

• leads to internalisation

normative social influence

• conform because of norms

• when we want to be liked

• emotional process

• leads to compliance

strengths of explanations

• support for ISI= LUCAS asked students to give answers to maths questions that were easy or hard, greater conformity to wrong answers when they were harder, most true when students said they was bad at maths

• RWA= research suggests that if people want to fit in (NSI) then they are more likely to smoke, LINKENBACH AND PERKINS= found teenagers that knew their peers didn’t smoke were less likely to smoke

weaknesses

• individual differences= people that don’t care about being liked are less likely to be affected by NSI, MCGHEE AND TEVAN= students in high need of affiliation are more likely to conform, means NSI doesn’t affect everyone

SHERIF and conformity

• automatic effect (when you shine a spot of light in a dark room it appears to move)

• told pps he was going to move light and had to guess how far it moved

  3 phases

• pls tested by themselves (estimates varied)

• pps put into group and they tended to compromise

• pps back tested by themselves (conformed to group judgement

  INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE as when uncertain we look for others guidance in order to be right

JENNESS and studies of conformity

procedure:

• pps made private estimate of number of jelly beans in jar

• then discussed in groups

• then asked to make a final private estimate

  findings

• people moved more to group estimate when they made their second private estimate

• Women confirmed more

• influenced by INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE

ASCH procedure

• AIM= to find out if pps would conform when others give wrong answer to obvious questions

• tested 123 American male students

• told them it was a visual perceptual experiment

• groups of 6-8 (all were confederates but one real pps)

• had to decide which 3 standard lines matched the one of the card

• real pps always answered second from last

• asch ensured the answer was obvious

• 18 trials, 12/18 were critical trials where the confederates gave wrong answer in order to see if real pps would conform

findings of ASCH study

• 1/3 confirmed to critical trials (e.g. incorrect answer)- shows strong tendency to conform to group pressure

• 75% of pps conformed atleast once

• after experiment the pps were interviews and found they conformed for three reasons ( they saw lines the same as majority, they were doubtful or their own judgement, most pps continued their private thoughts but changed their public answer to avoid disapproval)

conclusions of ASCH study

asch identified several factors affecting conformity:

• group size- little conformity when majority was 1-2 people but with a majority of 3 conformity increased to 32%

• task difficulty- when asch made lines look closer conformity increased

• unanimity- when asch added a non conforming confederate conformity dropped to 5.5%

evaluation of ASCH

• validity is questioned, artificial situation and task, pps knew they was in a study so demand characteristics may occur, means the group doesn’t resemble groups that we would see irl, findings can’t be generalised, HOWEVER= means they are well controlled

• ethical issues, e.g. deception, because they thought other people were involved and that they were genuine pps, HOWEVER= this ethical cost should be weighed up against the benefits from the study

• cultural differences, pps were American men, usa is an individualist culture and in collectivist cultures conformity rates are higher, asch findings tell us little about other cultures and women

zimbardo method

• field experiment in prison setting (mock)

• stanford university

• 24 male volunteers

• randomly assigned prison or guard

• uniforms to take away their identity (numbers not named, smocks, sunglasses)

findings of zimbardo

• guards were harsh

• prisoners rebelled (shouting or swearing)

• guards harassed prisoners

• some prisoners became depressed

• one prisoner released due to symptoms of psychological disturbance

• one went on hunger strike and guards tried to force feed

• guards showed brutal and aggressive behaviour

• study ended after 6 days instead of 14

conclusions of zimbardo

• social roles had a strong influence on behaviour

• guards were brutal

• prisoners were submissive

• roles were easily taken on

• behaved as if actually in prison

• demonstrated how readily people conform to social roles, even if it leads to morally questionable behavior

weaknesses of zimbardos study

• ethical issues, e.g. right to withdrawal, pps not allowed to leave even if they asked, zimbardo begged them to stay, HOWEVER= prisoner 8612 was allowed to leave due to psychological disturbance

• lack of research support, BBC prison study forms different findings, e.g. pps didn’t conform to their assigned roles like they did in Zimbardos study, the lack of consistent findings means that not everyone may act the same as the men in zimbardos study, HOWEVER= the significant difference could be explained as one was in USA and one in UK at different time periods

strengths of zimbardo

• RWA, conformity to social roles can explain events in military prisons in Iraq, zimbardo believed that the guards who were abusing were victims of situational factors that made abuse more likely, these factors like lack of training were present in SPE and Iraq, means SPE had external validity

what is obedience

it takes place when we act in response to a direct order from an authority figure, who has higher status

how is obedience different to authority?

• obedience involved a direct order from an individual but conformity involves a real proof pressure

• obedience is obeying someone with higher status but conformity is going along with people of equal status

• obedience relies on social power but conformity relies on the need to be socially approved

aim of milgram

• to see if we obey an authority figure

• test “Germans are different” hypothesis

procedure of milgram

• controlled observation

• yale university

• 40 males ( believed it was a “study of memory”)

• pps told they could be a teacher or learner (rigged, real pps were teacher and learners were confederates)

• teacher introduced to Mr Wallace (learner and confederate)

• teacher reads word pairs to learner and told by experimenter in lab coat that whenever they was wrong to shock them ( up by 15 V each time)

• if teacher is cautious they are given prods by experimenter like pls continue

findings of milgram

• 100% of pps shocked to 300V

• 65% continued to 450V (max amount of shocks)

• behavioural signs of nervousness (pps trembled and sweating)

• 3 pps had a seizure

conclusions of milgram

• ordinary people are very obedient

• shows power of social situations where our values disappear

replications of milgram

• LOCATION changed to a rundown office= 48% continued to 450V, as not as intimidating

• PROXIMITY of teacher and learner was in the same room= 40%, empathy as can see harm caused

• PROXIMITY, made teacher force learners hand on shock plate= 30%, can see harm you’re causing

• PROXIMITY, instructions given over the phone= 21%, no consequences through phone

• variation of UNIFORM, member of public= 20%, not high authority

A03 of milgram

• low internal validity, ORNE+HOLLAND claimed pps did not believe the shocks were real, e.g. why didn’t the experimenter give the shocks himself, therefore pps faced demand characteristics and believed this is how they should behave

• ethical issues, e.g. deception, they was told it was a memory study, as pps needed to believ shocks were real, HOWEVER= this was necessary to create realism

• more ethical issues, e.g. right to withdrawal, pps “ordered” to continue, means they were not free to leave, experimenter used prods like “pls continue”, HOWEVER= he told them at the start that they could leave

explanations of obedience: situational variables

• feature of the immediate physical and social environment which may affect a persons behaviour

  e.g.

• proximity

• location

• uniform

explanations of obedience: social psychological explanations ( AGENTIC STATE)

• milgram believed in cases of obedience people believe they are not responsible for their actions

• they act as an agent, aka genetic state

• most of the time individuals are in an autonomous state (where they have free will and take full responsibility of actions) but when in presence of authority they change from this to an agent if state (called agentic shift)

explanations of authority- social psychological explanations (LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY)

• in order to act in an agent if state the person we are obeying must be perceived to have legitimate authority

• society dictates the position of authority due to hierarchy so their authority is seen to be legitimate

• we are socialised to accept that authority may have the power to punish us

• however some powerful figures exploit their legitimate authority such as hitler

A03 of agentic state

• oversimplified, milgram claimed that people shift back and fourth between autonomous and agent if state and this fails to explain LIFTONS study, he found that doctors changed from being caring to carrying out lethal experiments on innocent people, shows that people don’t permanently switch from autonomic state

• limited explanation, the genetic shift doesn’t explain many research findings, e.g. doesn’t explain why some pps refused to obey in Milgrams study

A03 of legitimate authority

• research support, e.g. BLASS+SCHMITT showed video of milgram study to students and they said that the “experimenter “ was responsible for harm as he had legitimate authority, shows that because the experimenter had perceived legitimate authority pps felt that he had the power to tell them what to do

• cultural differences, replications of milgrams study conducted in Australia and found only 16% went to highest voltage but MANTELL conducted in Germany and found that 85% obeyed up to max shock, means that cultures that highly respect authority are more likely to obey and some cultures rebel against authority, shows that in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate

dispositions explanations of obedience: ardonos F-scale research AIM

• trying to find out if there is a relationship between authoritarian personalities and obedience

ardonos F-scale research METHOD

• 2000 US white m/c males completed questionnaires to measure their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups

• they developed several attitude scales, including the F-scale for measuring potential for facism which is used to measure authoritarian personality

ardonos F-scale research RESULTS

• found relationships between authoritarian personalities and prejudicial beliefs towards the “weak”

• people with authoritarian personalities are identified with “strong” people and were conscious of status, showing respect to those of higher authority

ardonos f-scale research CONCLUSIONS

• people with authoritarian personality characteristics are highly likely to think prejudicially and are obedient to authority figures

strengths of dispositional explanations of obedience

• research supporting the link between personality and obedience, milgram interviewed those who participated in the original obedience study and was fully obedient and all completed a F scale, the obedient pps scored higher on F scale then disobedient, supports ardono view that obedient people are similar to those with an authoritarian personality

weaknesses of dispositional explanations of obedience

• limited explanation as only 10% of a population are AP suggesting other factors, e.g. in pre war Germany loads of individuals displayed obedient and racist but but must have all different personalities, therefore his view is oversimplified

• research is politically based, Fscale only measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right wing ideology, JAHODA argued that f scale is a politically biased interpretation of AP, ardonos explanation doesn’t account for the whole political spectrum

what is an authoritarian personality?

• someone who has an active dislike of people they perceive as having inferior social status

• someone with an inflexible outlook

• highly conventional ideas of right and wrong (traditional views)

• extreme respect for authority

why do people have this personality?

• harsh parenting (strict discipline, high standards)

• these experiences create hostility in a child

• the child then displaces these feelings onto the “weak”

resisting social influence: social support

• suggests that when there is others in the situation that fact as dissenters it is easier to resist social influence

how does social support reduce conformity?

• the fact that someone else is not following the majority seems to allow a person to be free to follow their own conscience

• gives them confidence to resist as it breaks the unanimity of the majority

• individuals no longer fear being ridiculed allowing them to avoid normative social influence

• E.G. ASCH showed social support breaks the agreement of the majority as when there was a dissenter, conformity dropped to 5.5%

how does social support reduce obedience?

• allows the individual to gain moral support

• disobedient models make it easier to act independently as they are shown how to be disobedient

• E.G. in a variation of MILGRAM he found that obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine pps was joined by a disobedient confederate

A03 of social support

• research evidence supports the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity, e.g. ALLEN+LEVINE showed that social support can help individuals to resist the influence of a group , in an asch type task when the dissenter was someone with good eyesight 64% or genuine pps refused to conform, when there was no supporter at all only 3% of pps resisted, HOWEVER= the study also showed that social support doesn’t help, e.g. when dissenter had bad eyesight resistance was 36%

• evidence for the positive impact of social support, ALBRECHT evaluated teen fresh start (campaign to stop pregnant teens smoking by peer pressure), teens were given social support by a mentor, teens with a mentor were less likely to smoke then teens without one, this shows that social support can help young people resist social influence as part as an intervention in the real world

mosocovici blue/green slide study procedure

• pls given eye tests to ensure not colour blind

• female pps

• groups of 6 (2 in each were confederates)

• shown 36 blue coloured slides and asked to report colours out loud

• condition 1= confederates consistently said green

• condition 2= confederates were inconsistent

moscovici results

• pls green with minority on 8.42% of consistent trials

• when inconsistent agreement reduced to 1.25%

moscovici conclusions

• suggests that minorities can influence majorities

• however it indicated that this influence is much more effective when the minority are consistent

what is minority influence

• form of social influence where a persuasive minority changed the attitudes and behaviours of the majority

• leads to internalisation

• rejecting the established norm of the majority and move to the position of minority

characteristics that can lead to minority influence

• CONSISTANCY= increases interest, minorities must advocate their position consistently over time and amongst themselves

• COMMITMENT= extreme activities to draw attention, personal sacrifice gains more attention

• FLEXIBILITY= minorities must not be arrogant, need to show that they can adapt and compromise

• the process of change= SNOWBALL EFFECT (gradually overtime people become converted) SOCIAL CRYPTOAMNESIA (where people forget the origins of the change and the events that led to change)

A03 minority influence

• research support for consistency, this has confirmed mosocovicis findings that consistency is key to minority influence, WOOD did a meta analysis of 100 similar studies and found minorities that were consistent were the most influential, suggest that consistency is a major factor in minority influence, HOWEVER= meta analysis combine numerous studies so conclusions may ignore important differences between studies reducing the credibility of consistency argument

• external validity of moscovici is questioned, this is because tasks involved are artificial (judging colours of slides), in cases like political campaigning the outcomes are more important, matter because moscovici findings may not explain minority influence irl where the consequences of our actions hold more significance, HOWEVER= lag env means he could control extraneous variables like eyesight

• research evidence for the depth of thought, because the evidence shows shows that change to a minority position does involve deeper processing of ideas, e.g. MARTIN found that people were less likely to change their opinions if they listened to a minority compared to a majority, suggests that minorities are more persuasive, shows that their message has a more enduring effect

what is social change?

occurs when a society as a whole adopts a new belief or way of behaving which becomes widely accepted as the norm

A03 of social change

• RWA, minority groups initially look deviant which is a problem as majorities avoid them, this means that the focus is on the source of the message rather then the actual message, minorities can be advised to resolve this by highlighting their similarities to the majority

• social change is gradual, e.g. often slow so the influence of a minority is limited, it is argued that minorities create potential for change rather than actual change

• social norm interventions don’t always work, e.g. not always effective, DEJON found that college students did not self report lower alcohol consumption after social jeans media campaigns (that had corrected their misconceptions of drinking norms)